The Governor and Company of Gentlemen Adventurers of England v. Vaillancourt

The Governor and Company of Gentlemen Adventurers of England v. Vaillancourt

Majority: The company was vicariously liable under Article 1054 C.C. because the manager's shooting was held to be an abuse of the authority entrusted to him and therefore done in the performance of the functions for which he was employed; two judges also found direct employer liability under Article 1053 C.C. for negligent appointment/supervision. Appeal dismissed and lower court judgment affirmed.

Citation
[1923] SCR 414
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: The Governor and Company of Gentlemen Adventurers of England (Hudson's Bay Company); Respondent / Plaintiff: W. Vaillancourt
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 April 1923
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (master and Servant, Assault by Employee) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Master and Servant, Negligent Hiring and Supervision, Scope of Employment, Article 1053 C.c., Article 1054 C.c.
Source Language
English
Torts Employment Law Civil Liability Vicarious Liability Master and Servant Negligent Hiring and Supervision Scope of Employment Article 1053 C.c. +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Governor and Company of Gentlemen Adventurers of England (Hudson's Bay Company)

Appellant / Defendant

W. Vaillancourt

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (master and Servant, Assault by Employee) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer is vicariously liable under art.1054 C.C. for a violent act by a manager committed while drunk
  2. 2 Whether employer is directly liable under art.1053 C.C. for negligent selection or supervision of the manager
  3. 3 Whether the shooting was committed in the performance of the servant's functions or entirely outside them

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The company was vicariously liable under Article 1054 C.C. because the manager's shooting was held to be an abuse of the authority entrusted to him and therefore done in the performance of the functions for which he was employed; two judges also found direct employer liability under Article 1053 C.C. for negligent appointment/supervision. Appeal dismissed and lower court judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed; respondent's action for $13,000 maintained.